I am not to blame if anything happens to you.

LE

An article in the Sunday Times today made me wonder about a point of law:

'Firefighters planning to stage a 47-hour walkout on bonfire night say they will not be to blame if anyone dies as a result of their industrial action.

The Fire Brigades Union shrugged off the possibility of a fatal incident on November 5, when stations typically receive five times the normal number of emergency calls, saying it would be the fault of unreasonable bosses for failing to meet their demands' ​

Last year in Africa, during industrial action, a Deputy MD in the company I work with was told (in writing):

"We cannot be held responsible for anything that happens to you [if you carry on with rejecting our demands]."

​

Where does one differentiate (in British law) between actual threat ("I will kill you if you do that") and implied threat ("If you do that I will not be responsible for your murder")?

My personal view is that they are one and the same, but I'd appreciate the views of any 'legal eagle' types out there.